We think about decision making while solving problems as a natural and integral part of what we do when we face a challenge. We don’t, as a rule, decide to separate the decision making into two parts, but I started to categorizing thinking into two parts after I was talked to an expert in my engineering specialty many years ago. He categorized design thinking as synthesis; and what he did as an academic, solving of “Why?” problems, as analysis. As a practicing engineer in industry, I practiced both synthesis and analysis as the problem demanded. I switched between the two modes of work without consciously separating them in my mind, I knew I had to synthesize when I designed and analyze when I had to solve open-ended problems. I worked in one mode or the other without distinguishing one from the other. It wasn’t until it was pointed out that I was performing two different types of decision making that a lightbulb came on.
Synthesis and analysis are the two parts of the integrated whole
of thinking in general: the yin and yang of thinking. It is natural to subconsciously
switch between the two, depending on the problem and the unknowns.
So why separate the problem-solving process into synthesis
and analysis? I believe that it is important we understand how each works separately
because the purposes and processes of the two modes are so different and yet are
so intertwined it is important to understand them separately, at least in my
own conversation with myself. Once we understand each one, we can stitch them back
together so that we can understand how they work together in our problem
solving.
The advantage with switching quickly and subconsciously between
synthesis and analysis is that the two modes are tightly integrated, which
makes the process efficient; but our not being consciously aware of our switching
between the two modes may lead us into using synthesis when analysis is called
for, and vice versa. It forces us to spend more time than is necessary and more
importantly, may lead us into the bad habit of thinking in the wrong mode,
which may lead us to bad solutions.
When I started thinking about synthesis and analysis, I was
thinking primarily about my engineering self; how am I solving problems? Am I
being efficient and effective with my cogitations? Inevitably, I digressed and
started to extrapolate these ideas and proceeded to apply the synthesis/analysis
paradigm to my volleyball thinking process: how do I make decisions as a coach
and also imagining how my players would make decisions with synthesis and
analysis.
Some definitions:
Synthesis is defined in many ways
· the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form
a whole
· the combining of often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole
Similarly, analysis is defined as
· detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand
its nature or to determine its essential features.
· a thorough study: separation of a whole into its component parts
Those that take the known concepts and apply them in an
integrated way, making connections between the different defined knowledge
bases optimally to create original solutions can be categorized as synthesis. It
is the integration of known knowledge to create an original thought that makes
the process synthesis, just knowing the necessary knowledge is not synthesis.
Another way to simply characterize synthesis is to say that
it is the feedforward path; where decisions are made to integrate ideas into
action, but we need to also understand that we do so without being able to predict
the results. Decisions are made based on known knowledge, but it is the
situation that is unique. Execution of the synthesized decision leads to an
unknown and unpredictable result, making the synthesis an open loop activity.
Synthesis answers the “How?” and “What if?” questions.
Analysis is what happens when the results from the synthesis
decisions are compared to what we wanted to result. The comparison of the actual
versus the desired outcomes becomes questions: the comparison questions, how close
are the actual results to the desired results, assuming that all the variables
are measurable, which is a large assumption; the “Why?” questions, why did the
results come out the way they did; and the “How?” question, how can the next synthesis decision get closer
to the desired outcome, that is, “How?” can the initial models be improved so
that the synthesis decision that is based on the new improved models get closer
to the desired results.
Even as we know that analysis answers the “Why?” questions, we
also know that analysis — through answering the “How?” questions — can also answer some “What if?” questions. The
combination of the answers to those questions will allow us to explore ways of predicting
outcomes that are based on the improved models that are answers to the “How?”
questions.
The simple figure below illustrates the synthesis/analysis pair as a simple feedback model
used in system theory. Synthesis being the feedforward path and analysis being
the feedback path. Finding the difference between desired outcome and the
analysis of the actual result gives the decision-maker the structure for driving
the synthesis decisions.
There are two obvious constraints that need to be considered
when extrapolating the synthesis/analysis idea to sports. The first is the time
factor: actions happen quickly, in milliseconds, which adds significant stress
to the players and coaches during the decision-making process while playing. The
second constraint is that of context, there are two distinct but coupled
environments that exist in sports: the playing and the practice environments.
Since the first constraint is always present within the
second constraint: the speed of the game exerts significant but somewhat
different influences in both environments, both constraints are considered
together.
The playing environment is where the obvious emphasis should
be on executing, i.e. executing the
skills, tactic, strategies, and game knowledge. The added intangible factors
are: the player’s ability to deal with pressure, both intrinsic and extrinsic;
the player’s ability to apply their training under those conditions; and the
team’s ability to adjust to the uncertainties from having multiple independent
minds contributing to the ebb and flow of the game action, all executed
instantaneously.
The practice environment is where the obvious emphasis should
be on learning, i.e., teaching the player’s synapses and neurons to instantaneously
execute skills, strategies, tactics, and game knowledge.
My initial thought was to assign synthesis just to the
players, just as I had assigned synthesis just to the designers; the players
are the ones who must synthesize all their experiences through training and
playing.
Accordingly, I had assigned the role of the analyst to coaches because that was the
stereotypical role of the coach, the analyst, the person who evaluates the
games as it is played. They create the game plans before the games by applying
their knowledge of the game and experience with previous games; after the
games, they sort through the statistical data and their intuitive impressions
of the games to decide on whether the game was conducted according to their
plans.
While comparing the contexts of playing versus training for
players and coaches, I realized that the decision-making process for both roles
have complex and varying requirements. I also realized that my initial paradigm
was too simple: both players and coaches must not only perform both synthesis
and analysis, albeit with different ratios of synthesis and analysis tasks depending
on the context of the situation, just as the engineer must be able to perform
both modes of thinking; the biggest difference is first constraint: decisions
are made instantaneously in the playing environment.
In David Epstein’s book Range
Wicked domain: Unclear or incomplete rules. May not be repeated or obvious patterns.
Delayed or inaccurate feedback. Experience may reinforce the wrong response.
Kind domain: Patterns repeat itself. Accurate feedback. Feedback is
immediate and accurate.
In conjunction with the
environment, Epstein also defined two different modes of thinking that decision
makers use to make decisions. Conceptual thinking is the System 2 thinking as
defined by Kahneman
Procedural thinking is System
1 thinking as defined by Kahneman. It is where the decision maker bypasses the active
consciousness and relies upon our immediate knee jerk reaction. It is our automatic
cognitive reaction to any situation. It works by recalling pertinent knowledge on
the neuronal level and reacting rather than actively thinking on a brain level.
The greatest advantage to procedural thinking is that the solution comes fast. Unfortunately,
procedural thinking also presupposes a kind environment, i.e., linear thinking where
the solutions are based on scaling known solution, because the linear scaling
of a known solution because there is not time to think conceptually.
Looking at a playing situation, both players and coaches are
immersed in a wicked environment, meaning that the first constraint, the speed
of the game, drives their decision-making. Instantaneous and procedural solutions
that are in a wicked environment, which need to be nonlinear and conceptual in
scope. It is these instantaneous requirements that are imposed on the players
and coaches that makes the playing context so challenging.
For players, synthesis in the sports context is not strictly
thinking as it would be in the engineering context because the player is
reacting to the game in front of them, the procedural decision making does not
engage the conscious mind, it is the nervous system acting subconsciously and
reactively. The first constraint dominates, it is therefore more accurate to
define synthesis for the players in the playing environment as simply reacting,
because synthesis in the playing environment requires instantaneous recall of previously
programed neuronal pathways deriving from playing and training experiences,
combined with accumulated knowledge of the sport to make the necessary
decisions to not only survive but to overcome the wicked environment. Successful
players has internalized and integrated an abundance of game experiences to make their procedural
thinking accurate and recalling appropriate and compatible experiences from the
working memory.
There is, however, some time for the player to analyze their
situation during a dead ball period, but there isn’t enough time to analyze while
the ball is alive; any decision made through analysis is too late.
The coach is also in synthesis while residing in the playing
environment, although their decision making the time frame is longer, which allow
them to reside in the analysis mode for
longer periods of time, so they do not need to be as reactive as the players.
Even so, the ratio of the time that the coach spends in synthesis versus
analysis is significantly different for the playing and practice environments.
Coaches must respond quickly to game situations but must
also walk a tightrope between synthesizing and analyzing. Overanalyze and the
decisions are made too late; employing faulty and linear extrapolations of
their experiences, that is, employing heuristics that do not meet the
situational needs results in undesirable outcomes. (https://polymathtobe.blogspot.com/2023/06/volleyball-coaching-life-heuristics.html)
Another factor that coaches must consider is the way that
they deliver their instructions to the players while being cognizant of the
extrinsic loading effect on the player’s working memory. Coaches need to temper
the amount and complexity of their instructions to not distract the players with
too much extrinsic loads while also providing the players with essential instructions during play. This needs to be a
conscious decision for coaches to make while they are also extemporaneously
delivering the instruction that are the results of their analysis.
Another recently added factor for coaches is the use of statistics
in the aftermath of the Moneyball movement. While data collection provides
coaches with valuable information that describes the game to consider, the
amount of information can also distract and overwhelm. The volume of data that
is collected and consumed can easily create a situation of paralysis by
analysis. It is impossible to dive into the granularities of the statistical
data to arrive at the best answer to a specific situation while in a playing
environment. The perspicacious coaches will often use compounded metrics to
give them a snapshot of the ongoing match, a heuristic made up of specific data;
a good use of heuristics. It is important for coaches to realize that the
metrics they use in games are never permanent and have a half-life that lasts only
until the next set. Coaches must treat those statistics as instantaneous
snapshots of the game which prevents the coach from succumbing to paralysis by
analysis, it is by no means an accurate predictor of the future. It is human nature to extrapolate and project
the statistics into the future; that is, inferring and predicting the future
based on the description of the present. which will most likely lead to
fallacious decisions because the playing situation is dynamic and ever changing.
Another issue with using statistics is as Joe Maddon wrote
in his book
Transitioning to the practice environment, the best way to
deal with the wicked playing environment is to perform analysis offline, making
the analysis available for consideration as the situation arises But having the
analysis available is not enough, the analysis results must become procedural,
integrated in the heuristics of the coaches before the competition because
analysis in real time is impossible and failure prone. The ideal is to make the
players and coaches make decisions in an antifragile way; that is, to make the
procedural, the System 1 responses, be inherently adaptable to the situations
as they appear. This is why the practice environment is the yin to the yang of the
playing environment.
Antifragility is a
property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive
as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks,
or failures.
Effective practices are critical to effective performances
in play, despite Allen Iverson.
Antifragility also means that the system, the team in this
case, can make effective decisions under wicked environments while are also
adaptive to dynamic conditions of the playing environment. Indeed, an
antifragile system means that the team is not only robust and resilient — able
to withstand the challenges — but also make immediate decisions that allows the
team to gain from the challenges.
The players and coaches prepare to be antifragile in the
wicked environment by practicing in a kind environment. This might seem to be
an anachronism, but the kind environment slows down the urgency from the
playing environment, easing the time pressures for decision making by allowing
both players and coaches to have the time to analyze and experiment with the
most effective responses. The kind environment is more forgiving and allows
both players and coaches to discover the most effective decision by testing —
being allowed to make errors — and correcting them offline.
Practicing being antifragile requires both the players and
the coaches to flip back and forth between synthesis and analysis modes, much
like the engineers. The players are analyzing their execution of physical
skills, their reactions to situations, their ability improvise solutions, the
validity of their decisions, and their implementation of the tactics prescribed
by the coaching staff. Doing this in the kinder environment allows the brain to
engage in analysis without incurring costs, that is, losing in competition. As practices
evolve in time, the kind environment needs to progress towards being more
wicked, the importance of the time element and the competitive pressures all should
increase. This becomes the assessment of the players success in integrating the
analysis results from practice into their procedural reactions. They must be
able continually convert the conceptual into the procedural to make effective
decisions in the wicked playing environment. As the players switch between
synthesis to analysis, their time spent in synthesis should increase, assuming
that there is progress in integrating the analysis results into synthesis.
The players are also connecting the learning from the
practice environment to their playing experience and associating the “How?” and
“What if?” questions with the newly integrated procedural responses. This is
where the uncertainties come in. There is no way to adequately create a
practice environment which replicates the wicked playing environment. Add the
randomness and pressures which are intimate parts of playing, the results of
the synthesis done in practices will also be an open loop, that is,
unpredictable. Which is what makes playing the game so challenging .— there is
no way of predicting, a priori, the efficacy of the practice until after
the assessment through competition.
The practice environment is where the coach must be at their
most effective in coaching, because if coaches are at their most effective in
practice, the players should be at their most effective in the playing
environment, even if randomness disrupts the playing environment the players
should be prepared for the randomness by having been trained to be antifragile.
The amount of analysis done by the coaches is not just analysis
done in preparation for play: analysis of the strength and weaknesses of their opponent,
analysis of the strength and weaknesses
of their teams, and analysis of possible situational events that may happen
when matching up the teams. Preparation for play also means preparation of the
learning environment for the players individually, as small groups, and
cohesively as a team. Often coaches need to analyze their pedagogical methods
for effectiveness. They need to analyze their effectiveness in communicating
with each player and staff member; they need to analyze the communications
between coaching staff member and player; and they need to analyze the
effectiveness of each player’s communications with their teammates. It is
diving into the granularities of human interaction and communication and is the
key to training the players to be antifragile as they convert the conceptual thinking
from analysis in practice into the procedural reaction which feeds into player synthesis.
On the other hand, the coaches also need to be prepared to
synthesize while in the practice environment. They need to create and implement
training regimens extemporaneously as the situation demands which best serve
the learning needs of the team. They must also integrate the knowledge of the players
reactions to adverse situations that are observed in the the practice
environment into the coach’s procedural
thinking in order to incorporate those granular details into their decision
making in the playing environment.
This exercise started out to clarify the ideas in order to
gain an understanding of how synthesis and analysis happens in the engineering
and volleyball context. It is a thought experiment undertaken to give the ideas
the breadth and depth that I felt necessary. I wanted to explore the ideas in
my mind. I wrote it down because I wanted
to be able recall my thought process. I am putting this out because I felt
someone might find it interesting.
I hope that you did.
References
Epstein, David. Range, Why Generalists Triumph in
a Specialized World. New York : Riverhead Books., 2019.
Joe Maddon, Tom Verducci. The Book of Joe: Trying
Not to Suck at Baseball and Life. New York: Hatchette Book Group, 2022.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow.
NYC: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013.
Merriam Webster Dictionary. n.d. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
(accessed June 28, 2023).
Wikipedia. Antifragility. June 20, 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragility (accessed July 6, 2023).
